Linguistische Berichte - Sonderhefte
Hamburg: Buske
Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (11)
- Article (4)
- Book (2)
Keywords
- Deutsch (9)
- Semantik (4)
- Akzent (3)
- Finite Verbform (3)
- Grammatik (3)
- Syntax (3)
- Verumfokus (3)
- Argumentstruktur (2)
- Direkte Rede (2)
- Einbettungssatz <Linguistik> (2)
Publicationstate
- Zweitveröffentlichung (10)
- Postprint (5)
- Veröffentlichungsversion (3)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (11)
- Peer-Review (5)
Publisher
- Buske (15)
- Helmut Buske (2)
17
Perhaps the biggest challenge in derivational morphology is to reconcile morphological idiosyncrasy with semantic regularity. How can it be explained that words with dead affixes and irregulär allomorphy can nonetheless exhibit straightforward and stable semantic relations to their etymological bases (cf. strength ‘property of being strong’, obedience ‘act of obeying’, ‘property of being obedient’)? Theories based on the idea of capturing regularity in terms of synthetic rules for building up complex words out of morphemes along with rules for interpreting such structures in a compositional fashion have not made - and arguably cannot make - sense of this phenomenon. Taking the perspective of the learner in acquisition, I propose an alternative approach to meaning assignment based, not on syntagmatic relations among their constituent morphemes, but on paradigmatic relations between whole words. This approach not only explains the conditions under which meaning relations between words are expected to be stable but also accounts for another notorious mystery in derivational morphology, the frequent occurrence of total synonymy among affixes, as opposed to words.
21
The present investigation targets the phenomenon commonly called control. Many languages including German and Polish employ non-finite clauses (besides finite clauses) as propositional complements. The subject of these complement clauses is left unexpressed and must generally be interpreted co-referentially with the subject or object of the matrix clause (subject or object control). However. there are also infinitive-selecting verbs that do not allow for a co- referential interpretation of the embedded subject - semantically, the embedded infinitives of these anti-control verbs are thus less dependent on or less unifiable with the matrix proposition. In Polish anti-control constructions, non-finite complements are overtly marked with the complementizer zeby, suggesting that they are structurally more complex (namely. containing a C-projection) than the non-finite complements in control constructions lacking zeby (modulo special contexts. viz. 'control switch'). In a comparative perspective, the paper brings corpuslinguistic and experimental evidence to bear on the question whether surface appearances notwithstanding, the infinitival complements of anti-control verbs in German should similarly be analyzed as truly sentential, i.e., C-headed structures.
18
This article deals with three interrelated phenoma in the information structure of German sentences: the focusing of negative markers, of finite verb forms and of the particles ja, doch, wohl and schon. Focusing of the finite verb is the most important marker of verum focus, as described by Höhle (1988). Focusing of particles can be an alternative means for similar purposes, while focusing of negation seems to be the contradictory opposite of verum focus. It is shown that negation- independently of its information structural status - can be interpreted on three distinct levels of sentence meaning: as an indicator of the non-facticity of a state of affairs, the non-truth of a proposition, or the non-desirability of a speech act. Focusing of the negative marker puts contrastive emphasis on the negative value assigned to sentence meaning on one of these levels. Ve rum focus can be interpreted on the same three levels: as a marker of contrastive emphasis on a positive value of facticity, truth or desirability. The particles ja, doch, wohl and schon refer to sufficient epistemic or interactional conditions for the assignment of a positive or negative value. By focusing such a particle, the speaker indicates that (s)he believes the assigned value to be well justified and insists on establishing it as common ground for further interaction.
18
Proceeding from the central ideas of the papers contained in this volume, the closing article sets out to achieve a unified theory of the syntax and semantics of verum focus, to be illustrated for the sentence and clause types of present day German. In German, verum focus is realized phonologically by means of pitch accents on morphosyntactic exponents of various classes: finite verb forms, complementizers and subordinators, interrogative and relative phrases, and modal particles. In the first half of the article, these constituents - most of which reside in the left periphery of the sentence or clause - are shown to share the gramma-tical function of distinguishing between sentence moods and other categories of clauses. This observation gives rise to the assumption that verum focus should be explicable as contrastive focus on semantically distinctive features or components of sentence mood and clause type. In the second half of the article this assumption is spelt out for the sentence and clause types of German. We propose a universal semantic structure of sentence meaning which makes it possible to reduce the most typical cases of verum focus and their diverse contextual interpretations to highlighting the connection between the sentence/clause and its textual or dis-course environment. This connection is syntactically implemented by an element occupying the head position of CP: either a finite verb form or a complementizer/subordinator. Realizations of verum focus on prefield constituents in wh- and relative clauses are explained as phonetic remedies deployed when a connecting element in C° is missing. Focusing of modal particles in the middle field and of verb forms in the right periphery of the clause are shown to differ semantically from verum focus stricto sensu, although they have similar pragmatic effects. The theory is built exclusively on assumptions needed for independent reasons and dispenses with the problematic verum operator assumed in most traditional accounts.
22
Konnexion in argumentativen Texten. Gebrauchsunterschiede in Deutsch als L2 vs. Deutsch als L1
(2016)
Für die Kodierung interpropositionaler semantischer Relationen wie Additivität, Adversativität, Kausalität etc. steht im Deutschen wie in vielen anderen Sprachen ein reichhaltiges Inventar von Konnektoren unterschiedlicher syntaktischer Kategorien zur Verfügung. Einige semantische Relationen müssen jedoch nicht explizit kodiert werden, da sie auf der Basis übereinzelsprachlicher Erwartungen an „normale“ Sachverhaltszusammenhänge aus dem Kontext erschließbar sind. Ob diese Relationen dann auch von Schreibern ausbuchstabiert werden, ist einzelsprach-spezifisch unterschiedlich. Der Beitrag untersucht vor diesem Hintergrund die Kodierung interpropositionaler Relationen bei Lernern des Deutschen als Fremdsprache. Die Analyse eines Lernerkorpus mit Essays fortgeschrittener Deutschlerner aus Schweden, China und Weißrussland (KobaltDaF-Korpus) und eines muttersprachlichen Kontrollkorpus zeigt, dass Lerner von den Mustern der Muttersprachler quantitativ und qualitativ abweichen. Der Beitrag beschreibt diese Abweichungen und diskutiert mögliche Erklärungen.
28
Objekte der Begeisterung
(2020)
We present a construction-based approach to German prepositional object (I’O) constructions occurring with the verb begeistern ,to thrill'. Traditionally, the preposition in such structures is analysed as a meaningless object marker that is lexically selected by the governing verb and not subject to variation. Drawing on a corpus study in the German reference corpus DeReKo, we show that our target verb occurs with four different PO prepositions (für ,lor‘,« ׳? ,at', von ,front' and über ,over‘) that can be analysed as markers o f schematic argument structure constructions in the Construction Grammar sense. We show that each construction comes with its own meaning and semantically coherent predicate restrictions. We argue that purely valency-based (lexical) approaches to argument structure fail to capture these generalisations. On the other hand, purely schema-based (constructionist) approaches to argument structure face the complcmentary problem o f accommodating item-specific restrictions and exceptions to the generalisations they embody. We suggest that the necessary synthesis can be formulated within an account that recognises both generalised constructions and item-specific valency properties.